Penny
Jamieson:

Sparing the rodto save the child

Two weeks ago, the annual Diocesan Synod of the Anglican /Diocese of
Otago and Southland passed a resolution expressing its wish to see the law
that permits parents to administer corporal punishment to their children
amended to outlaw such a means of discipline.

The immediate concerns of the members of the synod were the recent cases
of severe physical abuse of children, most noticeably Lillybing,
the Masterton 2-year-old who died as a consequence of her
injuries. There have been other cases which have not led to
death but which have caused injury, such as the case in which a piece of
4-by-2 timber was used to beat a child, and this beating caused injury but
this violence was exonerated by the courts. The law is
ambiguous. It says "reasonable force" can be
used. It would seem quite a lot of damage can be done by
reasonable force.

Corporal punishment is a surprisingly hot issue. There are a
number of people who are very worried about the views the synod
confirmed. When I tease the issues out with them, they
often point to the most socially dislocated teenage behaviours such as
underage drinking and driving, and drug use, shop-lifting and so
on. These are behaviours parents clearly have difficulty
controlling. The argument seems to run that if we let up on
corporal punishment, these behaviours will become only more wild and
out of hand.

But will they? Or will corporal punishment just make it worse
by suggesting to young people that what they want they can have,
whether by force or sheer insistence with no call to respect the well-being
of others? Moreover, these are adolescent problems
involving young people who are just about as big as their parents are.

When I talk with people who are concerned about any suggestion that
corporal punishment should be made illegal, it turns out they are
really talking about how parents might discipline their young
children, people who are much smaller than they are, in the
expectation that they will not need such discipline when they become
adolescents. I think this is quite unrealistic.

And yes, they are reasonable, thinking, loving parents
and they are not talking about beating with a stick or a cane or
whatever, but a smack: a "quick, sharp shock" is the
phrase frequently used. This seems to suggest that a smack is a
way of communicating with a young person who is misbehaving.

Furthermore, and this is where it gets really difficult and
feelings run very high, there are very few adults who have never
smacked their children, and most have at least residual feelings of
guilt, which become drowned in self-justification. And
there is anxiety, genuine anxiety, that such a law would make
almost every parent into a criminal, albeit one who is not found out.

And little children can be utterly exasperating, and the temptation
to administer a quick fix, a quick smack, can be very
strong. But is this really the best way to teach the next
generation communication skills? I doubt it.

The concern of the members of our synod centred around the rising levels
of violence in our society and on the generally accepted understanding that
we do not want our children, any children, to learn that they
can get their way through violence, let alone violence to those
smaller and weaker than themselves. This is the way of the
bully. Such learning is not healthy, and is not easily
unlearned in adult life.

Unfortunately, support for corporal punishment has been found in
parts of the Christian tradition with the quotation of such passages as
Proverbs 13:24, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but
he who loves him is careful to discipline
him . . ." Much cruel and violent behaviour
towards children has been justified by these words.

It is very dangerous to take selective biblical passages and build an
entire ethic on them, especially when they are not words from the
Christian era. Jesus said "Let the children come to me and
do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as
these." His entire ethic was one of care and respect and love
for those who are vulnerable. And small children are very
vulnerable.

I find in my listening around that most people agree with this but they
are worried because the ethic of no corporal punishment seems impossibly
idealistic. But is it? Perhaps a good clear
directive that the mistreatment of children, for any reason, is
not acceptable in our society is the initial impulse to
transformation, a way of breaking the cycle of violence that is so
endemic among us.

Parenting is not easy, and parents need strong
support. Children are not cute and lovable all the time,
and caring for them is hard work. They need clarity of
values, strong boundaries and clear direction if they are to develop
into resilient and loving adults with a passion for the well-being of
others. It is love, tough love, that is the way.

This article was first published in the Otago Daily Times of
August 28, 2001.The writer is Anglican Bishop of the Dunedin
diocese.